[w7]

> Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything.

That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media.

> No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using the term, the rest of the world is not going to change how they speak so that you dont get offended.

I never asked them to-- if that's the phrasing in their native language, then so be it. Same reason why we can call Germany the name "Germany".

But it clearly has a different meaning in English.

> Obviously you are not a student of history.

I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian, that uses it to refer to modern US law-- even if it's just a translation from another language.

The problem is I'm having a hard time finding one on my own.

[unity1001]

> That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media.

How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary.

> But it clearly has a different meaning in English.

It doesnt:

> I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian

It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the matters of law can ask for 'sources' for such a thing. It just feels crazy. Here you go:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581

Its not about the law, its not about the history, its the actual term used in an Anglosaxon source about how French saw the !rise of Anglosaxons! in 20th century.

This paper of the actual university of Cambridge is actually named "The Rise of the Anglo-Saxon: French Perceptions of the Anglo-American World in the Long Twentieth Century". It is the Anglosaxons using the actual scientific term to refer to the actual historic and political science concept.

> The problem is I'm having a hard time finding one on my own.

Thats amazing now. The above was the first google result for me, an avid student of history. You were unable to find anything maybe its because you dont have much interest in that direction. Or, more likely, you were totally inundated with the actual propaganda war that very Anglosaxon establishment is waging against the actual historic term just because its current enemy used it to describe, well, itself...

[w7]

> How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary.

Language mutates.

> It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the matters of law can ask for 'sources' for such a thing. It just feels crazy. Here you go:

> https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581

An entire article describing the: absence of its usage in scholarly contexts outside of specific cultural domains, and also simultaneously points out its usage as a ideological label.

I'll admit my error in being unable to find this, but it's not legal analysis specific, and the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.

You probably should have picked something else.

[UncleMeat]

It isn’t an especially historic term. It certainly isn’t contemporaneous to the time period people associate with the term.

[singleshot_]

It’s called “English common law” to everyone who isn’t an absolute weirdo.